Case: Camera Phones and Public Privacy

Camera phones are conventional cell phones with tiny lenses and built-in digital cameras. Once the user takes a photo, it can be sent to a friend’s cell phone with a few key strokes—or to a website. The estimated number of camera phones sold in the United States in 2005 is 1.9 million (probably far beyond that number in 2006).

The issue isn’t photography but privacy. For this reason, some health clubs, celebrity gatherings, and research facilities have banned camera phones. Taking pictures has been possible for a long time; what has changed is the ease with which secret pictures can be taken and instantly published.

Privacy has ordinarily been seen as a right of private places: in our homes; behind firewalls; with our lawyers, doctors, clergy, accountants. What about public privacy? Do we have a right to live an unrecorded life, even in public?

Camera phones have a great potential for fighting terrorism, fraud, and crimes of all sorts. But do we want someone to create vast data banks of images that could profile our activities over a course of years? Will such ability breed fear?

1. Are the problems discussed in this case ethical problems? Why?
2. Do we have a right to “live an unrecorded life” even when we are in public rather than private spaces?
3. What is the essential difference between taking a picture of someone with a conventional camera and taking a picture secretly with a camera phone?
4. Is photo sharing a harmless activity? Does it matter how we share photos?
5. Is government regulation of camera phones justifiable?
6. Is there technology that we have a right to regulate?

(adapted from Rushworth Kidder, Ethics Newsline, October 20, 2003)

Last | Ethics Contents | Next