Nokia 6310i replacement

"Chogaire" <spam@my*****up.co.uk> decided it would be mildly amusing to
write:

> BTW, I'm sure the victims themselves, who have their asses posted on
> the net without their consent, don't take it as lightly as you. ;-)

Personally I think it's ****ED UP that all this camera phone nonsense has
been stirring up the media over the past week or so.

People all quite prepared to jump on a bandwagon labelling camera phone
owners as PEEEDOPHILESS, but they forget that we have CCTV everywhere -
yes including CHANGING ROOMS WHERE CHILDREN GET NAKED. You can't walk
500yds in this country without your picture getting taken on CCTV, and
quite often it's done covertly.

I'm far more concerned about CCTV. Camera phones at the moment take
relatively low resolution pictures and most don't even have flash. CCTV
is everywhere - capturing everything you do at 25 frames per second - and
there's no guarantee what will happen to those tapes, for all you knwo
some PEEDOFILE SECURITY GUARD IS LOOKING AT TEH TAPES NOW AND LOOKING AT
TEH CHILDREBN!!!!!

The only solution, I feel, is to REMOVE EVERYONES EYEBALLS, thus curing
the entire problems of cameras.

--
Lots of love, Rich
crapola - http://www.brushtastic.f2s.com
gamertag - sausagelord / ph33r my ****e gaming skillz!!!

---

› See More: Nokia 6310i replacement

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >What obvious reasons? Mindless paranoia?
> >
>
> I was thinking the same thing.
>
> What are they going to do, stop everyone at the door and ask to check
the make
> and model of their cell phone.
>
> I don't think so!

Tried entering a court or any other government building lately..?

Ivor

>Tried entering a court or any other government building lately..?

Regularly

No problems

--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:09:26 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] (Soruk) wrote:

>Any business that is a contractor to the government, for starters.

As a contractor to the government, I've taken my T610 onto government
sites many, many times.

--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:34:18 +0100, michael turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The 'obvious reason' I had in mind was, paedophiles trying to photograph
>children in the changing-rooms.

So you're not concerned about them being there and seeing the kids
getting changed, but just that they take badly-lit, poor quality
photos of them.

Get real.


--

Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!

"Michael McConnell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 10:42:47 GMT, [email protected]
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:13:55 +0100, "Bob Martin"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>> This would be extremely foolish of the networks. Many businesses ban
> >>> camera phones.
> >>
> >>Exactly my reason for wanting the 6810 ... it seems that the number of
> >>client sites etc. I visit with a "no camera phones" policy or similar is
> >>ever increasing, but the manufacturers and networks persist in chasing
the
> >>Consumer market with the addition of useless toys, despite the *much*
higher
> >>ARPU from Business Users.
> >>
> >>To quote Dilbert - "Marketing Department - 2 drinks minimum" ....
nothing
> >>there about numeracy ;-(
> >>
> >Got the 6820 myself which is more compact than the 6810 - it has a
> >camera but you don't have to use it!
>
> The fact it /has/ a camera is enough for many businesses to ban them from
> their premises.

Seconded. They are totally banned at my employers!

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:09:26 +0000 (UTC),
> [email protected] (Soruk) wrote:
>
> >Any business that is a contractor to the government, for starters.
>
> As a contractor to the government, I've taken my T610 onto government
> sites many, many times.

I did too with my T610 and got totally *&£$^$(£$ - to say the least!

In article news:<[email protected]>, Chogaire wrote:
> It soon will be. Japan are making it compulsory for the phones to
> make a 65 decibel sound when a shot is taken. Japan has suffered a
> lot of voyeur camera phone activity.

Only camera *phones*, not all digital cameras? How stupid is that!

Cheers,
Daniel.

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >Tried entering a court or any other government building lately..?
>
> Regularly
>
> No problems

But did they let you carry your phone past the security checkpoint..? I
have always been told to hand over my phone to the security guards while
on court premises. Maybe they're stricter here, I don't know.

Ivor

>But did they let you carry your phone past the security checkpoint..?

No problem with the phone but I had to take my (small) pocket knife back to the
car. Keep in mind - I live in Texas and EVERYONE carries a pocket knife.


--
John S.
e-mail responses to - john at kiana dot net

On Sun, 16 May 2004 22:39:35 +0100, michael turner
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:46:34 +0100, Chogaire wrote:
>
>>
>> "michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>
>>> Yup I will concur with that, and it's exactly the same with GCHQ in
>>> Cheltenham.
>>> http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
>>>
>>
>> Are you a spy? And do you wear a dinner jacket and drink shaken not stirred
>> drinks n that lot? :-)
>
>LOL...my name is Bond...Basildon Bold.
>
>I few years ago I used to have to go in there as a contractor.
>Prohibited items (cameras included) where confiscated at the gate, but
>they where returned upon exiting the establishment. BUT if you where found
>with any prohibited items while on the premises, you where in pretty
>deep ****...attempted espionage, etc.
>
>Even now my job requires me to go into some sensitive establishments,
>so a camera-phone is not an option for me.
>
>I want a camera, I go to Jessops or London Camera Exchange NOT Vodafone
>or T-mobile.
>
>Anyway I've already got a nice 4megapixel Canon Ixus400, so why would I
>want a phone with a poor CIF(webcam) resolution POS.
Jessops have taken over London Camera Exchange :-(


Alan
Take DogForAWalk before replying by e-mail

"John S." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >But did they let you carry your phone past the security checkpoint..?
>
> No problem with the phone but I had to take my (small) pocket knife back
to the
> car. Keep in mind - I live in Texas and EVERYONE carries a pocket knife.

Ah, well that's the USA for you ;-) I'm in the UK so they have different
security priorities..! I've never had the need for a pocket knife, but the
metal rod I had implanted in my leg for a few years after a bad break
played havoc with airport metal detectors ;-)

Ivor

"Daniel James" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article news:<[email protected]>, Chogaire wrote:
> > It soon will be. Japan are making it compulsory for the phones to
> > make a 65 decibel sound when a shot is taken. Japan has suffered a
> > lot of voyeur camera phone activity.
>
> Only camera *phones*, not all digital cameras? How stupid is that!

Maybe a little stupid, but it makes some form of sense- pretty much everyone
"knows" what a camera looks like, so you have some warning when somebody
whips a camera out and sticks it in your face (or elsewhere!) Camera phones
look like phones, and pictures can be taken far more discreetly.

I agree that creating legislation for camera phones specifically is a little
kneejerk- "spy" cameras have existed for decades and life has gone on
without civilization crumbling, but lawmakers survive by pandering to the
latest "problem" that isn't! ;-)

Besides, look at the opportunity for software developers to create a new
market of software "illegally" muting the mandatory 65dB camera noise!

....now if they'd just legislate that the "Nextel Chirp" must be accompianed
by the phone's display flashing "My owner is rude and obnoxious!" in a font
easily readable as far as the sound carries... ;-)

Chogaire wrote:
> It soon will be. Japan are making it compulsory for the phones to make a 65
> decibel sound when a shot is taken. Japan has suffered a lot of voyeur
> camera phone activity.

The Register had an article yesterday...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/17/up_skirt_law/

"Our opinion: a genuine fad for true sneak "intimate" photography of
ordinary pictures is most unlikely to become widespread. The resulting
images are unlikely to be even vaguely erotic, and boredom would set in
quickly. But the law prohibiting such devices may rest on many statute
books for many years, nonetheless."

"Soruk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 20:46:34 +0100, Chogaire <spam@my*****up.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"michael turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news[email protected]...
> >
> >> Yup I will concur with that, and it's exactly the same with GCHQ in
> >> Cheltenham.
> >> http://www.gchq.gov.uk/
> >>
> >
> >Are you a spy? And do you wear a dinner jacket and drink shaken not
stirred
> >drinks n that lot? :-)
>
> No. We all know this world isn't real, this is just the figment of some
> crazed world-dominating computer's imagination. ;-)

I knew it! I just knew it! Who is Morpheus? What *is* the Matrix???