Incredibly shortsighted, hopelessly nostalgic editorial in yesterday’s New York Times about how digital cameras shouldn’t be a part of cellphones:
Now, among the many unnecessary features cluttering the new mobile phones are small digital cameras. To the long list of places where cellphone use is not appropriate, like restaurants and theaters, you can add the still longer list of places where cellphone cameras are not appropriate, like gyms and locker rooms…The ads suggest that the purpose of putting cameras in cellphones is to take photos and share them immediately by sending them over the airwaves to friends and relatives. But the real purpose is to sell minutes on your wireless service. Although no one really wants the return of the wall-tethered rotary-dial black Bell, there is something to be said for the days when a cellphone was just a cellphone.
The days when a cellphone was just a cellphone? Like four years ago? Yeah, those years were AMAZING, weren’t they? What’s next, nostalgia for the good old days when MP3 players didn’t have hard drives? It’s obvious that the New York Times editorial board simply finds it easier to just buy into the hysteria about cameraphones rather than think critically about all this stuff. Whatever the attendant social problems of having cameras in cellphones might be, they are being blown way, way out of proportion. Yes, it’s easy to sneak a picture of someone with a phone and beam it to the Internet. But remember that if someone is doggedly determined to break the law and secretly snap pictures of you, they’re going to be able to do that with or without a cameraphone. Rather than ban the technology, we should focus on strengthening privacy laws that make it illegal to snap pictures or record video in sensitive locations like gym locker rooms or public pools.
Besides which, the New York Times of all places should recognize the inherent value of the cameraphone as a news gathering device and how they will ultimately be good for journalism. As Jeff Jarvis of BuzzMachine points out:
Camera phones are, in fact, good for taking pictures of family and such and sending them to friends. Note the social trend, folks; they’re selling well for a reason; it’s the will of the marketplace. But camera phones will also have an important impact on journalism as witnesses everywhere will be able to document what happens in front of their eyes. These pictures will better record news. They will find their way into newspapers. They will improve and broaden the witness of news. That is good for journalism. Somebody go down the hall to the Times editorial board and turn over their calendar to 2003.
