Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1.    #1  
    Check this out:
    http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103_2-507...=zdfd.newsfeed

    IMO, I don't think this would take off, but who knows. Hopefully there would be a version available for the Palm platform. If it's implemented well, it could solve the problem for people who want a Treo 600 but work won't let them use a camera phone for security reasons.
  2. #2  
    Ok, I know I am naive, but it is by choice, not because of ignorance (mostly).

    Why can't companies/government agencies trust their employees? And I don't mean trust everyone who walks through the door, I mean if you don't trust someone, don't let them walk through the door, cameraphone or no.

    There has been a lot of discussion on these boards about people not being able to take a camera phone to work. If your employers feel that you will steal top secret information (using a 640x480 grainy camera, no less), then they should not have hired you in the first place. Yes, it is possible that you would take pictures with it. It is possible that you will slip some sensitive documents under your shirt, or that you have a photographic memory, and are actually a spy for [insert enemy or competitor here].

    Either they should let you in, and trust you (or at least trust their ability to lock you up and sue you and your cohorts into oblivion based on the NDAs you've no doubt signed and IP laws), or they should let/make you show up to work naked (which would still leave them wide open to sub-dermally injected high-res infrared cameras and the like).

    -------

    Security Guard: "Sorry pal, no cameras. We don't want people taking recognizable pictures of our operations which could be used to compromise our business plans and/or ability to overthrow the government of our choice."

    Me: "No, no. This is a Treo 600. No picture taken with this could possibly be recognized by anyone as anything."

    Security Guard: "Ok, go on through. And for God's sake, put some pant's on."
  3. #3  
    Really? Seriously? Trust their employees? As an employer of some of the best people in my field I can tell you how that is sheer insanity! The fact of the matter is you cannot control your employees morals and ethics, but you can control their ability to use cameras. Furthermore, it has been proven time and time again that you cannot trust the common man to do what is right! They only blunder along doing what FEELS good.
    There are a select few of us with the knowledge, intelligence, and forethought, to rule this planet! The majority of the population are sniveling morons put here to be cared for BY US! While I do believe the Treo600 is the end-all, be-all device, I do NOT understand Hawkin's need to place such a powerful tool into the hands of the common man at all. The three of us in the Triumvirate are the only ones who should be granted this weapon! The common man is a dog! Might equals right! Down with Democracy!WHAT?!? Oh...now? Okay. The doctor says I've had enough computer time. Goodbye.
    Go here if you're tired of being .
    It'll be fun.
  4. #4  
    I agreed with at least the first half of Dr. Doom's post. I can't completely disagree with the latter half.

    It's a lovely concept to think that a company should only hire employees they can trust. However, since full mind scans aren't possible at the moment, and no doubt would be considered unconsititutional invasions of privacy, it's not possible to weed out the bad eggs. In my company of 40000 people, access to information is limited, but that's not a fool-proof situation.

    Geoffrey
  5. #5  
    I agree with guessed: you have to trust your employees. This is yet another misguided attempt to prevent something that can not be prevented. If someone really wanted to steal or sell secrets that they work with every day, they would use a better tool than a phone camera.
  6. #6  
    Until this moment I have often wondered if I would EVER have the opportunity to use this phrase in casual conversation.
    "That, sir, is drivel. Utter drivel.
    Go here if you're tired of being .
    It'll be fun.
  7. #7  
    > ...Why can't companies/government agencies trust their employees? ...

    Trust has nothing to do with it.

    Laws already totally cover taking pictures where pictures shouldn;t be taken legally.

    That's not the problem.

    The problem is people bringing devices that may do what the people don't know that they're doing.

    Or maybe the people simply say "Jusst this once" and snap that quickie photo to show their spousie their workplace.

    I posted about the "Furby" (sp?) awhile back - the No Such Agency banned them because they took what they "heard", massaged it, and spit it back out. They didn't even "record" in the sense we know.

    But BOY were they popular.

    And a security leak potential since they DID process "heard" information in a known (reversable?) manner and MEMORIZE it.

    Bring a Furby into HQ - get your can burnt.

    People do innocent dumb things.
  8. #8  
    Down with companies! Who needs to not be trusted by their employers!

    Cameraphones in the workplace can only lead to misuse. Palm beware....you could hire a Treocentral informant taking pictures of the Treo 700 with his 600.

    All us Treo lovers would love him for it, but we couldn't trust him.

    We are so fickle.
  9. jsabo's Avatar
    Posts
    427 Posts
    Global Posts
    479 Global Posts
    #9  
    It's completely possible for you to hire a trustworthy employee, then have something happen to lose that trust-- you **** them off, they wind up having an unexpected financial burden, etc.

    If every company only hired people that were going to be 100% reliable under all possible circumstances, unemployment would probably be around 99.999% in the country.
  10. #10  
    I think the best way is to make devices versions without internal camera,
    because supporting devices will not appear in the nearest future, and such protection can be overcomed on hardware/software level if needed.
    Moreover, all WiFi web cameras shall contain such protection to prevent 'spying' during walking with it within office.
    My IMHO that this is next utopia with high cost and low efficiency.
    Technologies that may become mobile...
  11. #11  
    You guys are also forgetting the 500,000 plus federal workers in this country. Believe it or not, everyone is searched when entering ANY Federal building. You can thank Osama bin Laden for that one.

    As an attorney who has to enter Federal buildings on a weekly basis, the last thing I want to give up is my phone. Worse yet, my pda. The trend these days is to stick a camera on almost everything. I've been eyeing the Treo 600 for months now, but I probably won't go for it because of the camera. Likewise, the G1000 and the other PDA/Phone combos are out as well. I've even written Handspring about releasing a non-camera version and they tell me that it probably won't happen.

    Sorry folks, but all these phone companies have just alienated a large group of consumers that can't use their products because they have a stupid camera on it. It's gotten to the point that some downtown clubs have started prohibiting camera phones in the clubs. So its not just Federal employees.

    I already carry enough things around when I'm at court. A PDA/Phone like the Treo 600 is the perfect solution to my needs. I can place calls to the office or surf the web while waiting for a decision. EXCEPT for that stupid camera!

    DizzyK2
  12. #12  
    I've even written Handspring about releasing a non-camera version and they tell me that it probably won't happen.
    You would think that they could just make another back without the camera lense hole - leave the hardware on the inside.

    Maybe a 3rd party developer will make an "upgrade/downgrade" back panel to replace the original. It would allow an easy swap-back later if/when company policy changes.
  13. randyg's Avatar
    Posts
    447 Posts
    Global Posts
    459 Global Posts
    #13  
    I think we might all be missing the point here. Is this kind of technology even possible? I could understand being able to keep you from making calls, that already exists. But this seems a little far fetched to me! How could they single out this one part of the phones operation and allow every other aspect to work? If it's that secure of a facility, wouldn't they have monitors around, and wouldn't that same technology keep their monitors from working? The camera is not dependent on receiving a signal or emitting a signal as the phone is, so how could you possibly jam it?
    I'm just asking?!
    a dirty mind is a terrible thing to waste
  14. jsabo's Avatar
    Posts
    427 Posts
    Global Posts
    479 Global Posts
    #14  
    From the article, the idea is that you would install software on your phone that would then use some hardware to receive a signal (bluetooth?), then the software would disable the cam.

    MAYBE if this was built into the OS or hardware of the phone it might work. But I'm betting that they could hack around it. So it would just stop the stupid people.
  15. #15  
    If you are concerned about the camera aspect, drill it out partially and epoxy over the dent with black epoxy. Nobody will treat it like it is a camera after that and the truth is the camera is useless anyway

Posting Permissions