[mandm1229]

I have never had a problem with shutter sound. If i am taking a picture it is known and i am not trying to hide anything. People need to just relax.

If you have to think to yourself i cant make a sound to take this picture i would say it is probably wrong. I understand if you are taking a picture of a pet or a baby sleeping and you dont want a sound. ps grab a point and shoot camera. The quality will be better.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 on Verizon Wireless.
BlackBerry By Choice!

[u4ria]

Well for one instance that has been reported a lot are perverts who go into dressing rooms and snap photos with a cell phone of women, children, etc changing, and I would have to say that you should have privacy while in a dressing room. I understand this blah, blah too much government, too many rules, but if people wouldn't abuse things, then we wouldn't need for some of these rules. And like I said in an earlier post, this sound is mostly for BlackBerry's previous KEY demographic which was businesses/corporate clients that didn't want employees, contractors, vendors, etc having a chance to take snap shots of proprietary information with their phone and taking it elsewhere. I understand it might not stop everyone in the corporate world, but it would limit it especially with BlackBerry's and this is what BlackBerry prides themselves on is the security.

Security? They have BlackBerry Balance, which would take care of any issues that arise in the Enterprise arena. For the consumer side of things, why aren't we given a choice to shut off the shutter sound?

One of the reasons for BlackBerry's demise was the lack of consumer choices. They didn't cater to what consumers wanted and dug themselves a hole that was almost 6 feet deep. They're only getting themselves out of that hole...slowly. Until they start giving consumers more choices and options, they'll have a difficult time competing with Apple & Samsung.

Why is it that people don't have an issue with the silent shutters on iPhones? How many iPhones are out there compared to BlackBerrys? There's no outcry about silent shutters on iPhones. There's no hysteria about them taking pictures. Compared to the number of phones sold and market share, which demographic do you think BlackBerry should start catering to? The Enterprise clients or the Consumer market? I think everyone knows the answer to that, as the company with the fruit logo answered that one.

[u4ria]

Well for one instance that has been reported a lot are perverts who go into dressing rooms and snap photos with a cell phone of women, children, etc changing, and I would have to say that you should have privacy while in a dressing room. I understand this blah, blah too much government, too many rules, but if people wouldn't abuse things, then we wouldn't need for some of these rules. And like I said in an earlier post, this sound is mostly for BlackBerry's previous KEY demographic which was businesses/corporate clients that didn't want employees, contractors, vendors, etc having a chance to take snap shots of proprietary information with their phone and taking it elsewhere. I understand it might not stop everyone in the corporate world, but it would limit it especially with BlackBerry's and this is what BlackBerry prides themselves on is the security.

Really? A lot of men will go into a women's change room (without anyone noticing) and then whipping out their mobile phones and taking pictures freely? But if that phone had made a shutter sound, then everyone would have noticed. Is the boogie man also hiding behind the corner, so convex mirrors should be at every corner?

As you said, PREVIOUS Key demographic was the Enterprise arena. It would make sense for them to implement the shutter sound then. But now with BB10, they are targeting the Consumer side of things. So the argument about security is now a moot point. Consumers demand choices. One of those choices should be to silence the shutter. Look at what what happened when they failed to listen to what consumers wanted. They went from 1st place to a distant 3rd place.

[ZMc1834]

Security? They have BlackBerry Balance, which would take care of any issues that arise in the Enterprise arena. For the consumer side of things, why aren't we given a choice to shut off the shutter sound?

One of the reasons for BlackBerry's demise was the lack of consumer choices. They didn't cater to what consumers wanted and dug themselves a hole that was almost 6 feet deep. They're only getting themselves out of that hole...slowly. Until they start giving consumers more choices and options, they'll have a difficult time competing with Apple & Samsung.

Why is it that people don't have an issue with the silent shutters on iPhones? How many iPhones are out there compared to BlackBerrys? There's no outcry about silent shutters on iPhones. There's no hysteria about them taking pictures. Compared to the number of phones sold and market share, which demographic do you think BlackBerry should start catering to? The Enterprise clients or the Consumer market? I think everyone knows the answer to that, as the company with the fruit logo answered that one.

I agree 100% that an option should be given and this is something BB needs to look into and offer to people. I believe I posted in my original or second post of this thread that they should offer an app that can possibly be regulated to specific countries, carriers, etc in which allows the sound to be turned off. This would solve all issues in which corporate companies would be able to regulate the app usage, the countries that might have laws against the no sound can disallow the app through the providers or I am sure there is another way. My main point is just that there are instances in which the shutter sound can be useful and prevent unwanted pictures from being taken, but unless there are specific laws stating the sound needs to be present, BB should leave it up to the consumer, service provider, and/or corporate client on whether or not the sound should be on/off.

[Shadrackc]

There are lots of rules in society that are built to protect from the few. Yes, it is a pain that we have to worry about people taking pictures of kids, pictures in locker rooms, or invading peoples privacy with a camera. Because of the few that don't respect common decency, we have rules.
Because of the few, we now have to be scanned like crazy at the airport.
Because of few, smoke detectors have to be put in airplane bathrooms.
etc etc.
Like someone said, if you want to take a picture of a sleeping baby, go get another camera. Baby will still be sleeping.

[ZMc1834]

Really? A lot of men will go into a women's change room (without anyone noticing) and then whipping out their mobile phones and taking pictures freely? But if that phone had made a shutter sound, then everyone would have noticed. Is the boogie man also hiding behind the corner, so convex mirrors should be at every corner?

As you said, PREVIOUS Key demographic was the Enterprise arena. It would make sense for them to implement the shutter sound then. But now with BB10, they are targeting the Consumer side of things. So the argument about security is now a moot point. Consumers demand choices. One of those choices should be to silence the shutter. Look at what what happened when they failed to listen to what consumers wanted. They went from 1st place to a distant 3rd place.

There have been well noted cases of perverts taking unwanted photographs of women in dressing rooms; I know I have seen numerous news reports of this in my small metropolitan area which is not a major major city.

[Detective M Downs]

I see people (guys) all the time on NYC subway using there iPhone and/or Android devices taking pictures of girls (butts, breast,etc), without them knowing... Pervs!! I have no issue with the camera sound.

[RubberChicken76]

Dumbest idea ever. There are times when one needs to take a picture. Say, during a lecture. Having a shutter sound distracts everyone.

Or that pretty blond in the front row who you don't want knowing you're taking her picture, right? I hate to say it, but I bet a lot of people asking for this feature are thinking of it for this very reason.

Still, I can see the legit use-case as well. I once went to take a picture of my cousin's little baby at a wedding to send to my mother, who couldn't attend. The shutter sound would have woken him up.

[ZMc1834]

I personally find the camera sound quite annoying when I am trying to sneak a photo of the Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile Z10 US Release Date announcements, lol, j/k, if I had access to those, they would already be posted all over CB.

[bobauckland]

Um No. If you followed my logic we'd ban the act of drunk driving....oh wait a min :s

It doesn't ban the act of taking pictures. Nor does it restrict its functionality. The camera still works fine.


Posted via CB10 on my Z10 Oreo

I think you'll find if you think about it in a rational way he'd right and you're wrong.
Drinking isn't banned. Driving isn't banned. Drinking and driving is banned.
Taking photos isn't banned. Silent cameras aren't banned. Taking photos with cameras of children or people against their wishes or in provocative angles/poses is likely banned in most places.

I don't understand how people are actually arguing this out, the bottom line is there is no law against silent camera in most places in the world. If there's no law it's no one's right to go around making stuff up based on what they feel is necessary.
This annoys the heck out of me, like when I can't get foie gras in the supermarket because environmental terrorists make a fuss and threaten to wreck the store unless they stop stocking it.

Don't push your ideas on other people. If there's a law, follow it, where the law is applicable. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and don't force them onto other people as laws when they are not.

Or that pretty blond in the front row who you don't want knowing you're taking her picture, right? I hate to say it, but I bet a lot of people asking for this feature are thinking of it for this very reason.

Still, I can see the legit use-case as well. I once went to take a picture of my cousin's little baby at a wedding to send to my mother, who couldn't attend. The shutter sound would have woken him up.

See I'll go the other way on this. I'd be more worried about most of the people throwing up reasons why cameras shouldn't be silent. I want a silent camera, my reasons are for my baby and to take photos of notes at work.
If someone doesn't want it because they think people will use it to take pics of kids etc in provocative poses, in my opinion that's because that's what those people would do if they had a chance. That's where their mind went straight away. I'd be more worried around those people.

[bintheredundat]

I think you'll find if you think about it in a rational way he'd right and you're wrong.
Drinking isn't banned. Driving isn't banned. Drinking and driving is banned.
Taking photos isn't banned. Silent cameras aren't banned. Taking photos with cameras of children or people against their wishes or in provocative angles/poses is likely banned in most places.

I don't understand how people are actually arguing this out, the bottom line is there is no law against silent camera in most places in the world. If there's no law it's no one's right to go around making stuff up based on what they feel is necessary.
This annoys the heck out of me, like when I can't get foie gras in the supermarket because environmental terrorists make a fuss and threaten to wreck the store unless they stop stocking it.

Don't push your ideas on other people. If there's a law, follow it, where the law is applicable. Otherwise, keep your opinions to yourself, and don't force them onto other people as laws when they are not.



See I'll go the other way on this. I'd be more worried about most of the people throwing up reasons why cameras shouldn't be silent. I want a silent camera, my reasons are for my baby and to take photos of notes at work.
If someone doesn't want it because they think people will use it to take pics of kids etc in provocative poses, in my opinion that's because that's what those people would do if they had a chance. That's where their mind went straight away. I'd be more worried around those people.

Thank you bobauckland for letting me know my thoughts are irrational and that I'm wrong. I was replying to a post comparing the sounds on a Blackberry camera shutter to banning cars and the problems at the US/Mexico border. Really!? But somehow my response was irrational. Right.

If you read the posts I've made on this thread, you'd notice that I haven't referred to any laws neither have I attempted to change anyones opinions. I've merely stated my opinion...isn't that what forums like this are for? Perhaps you should take a little of your own advice.

Sadly, I prefer audible shutters not because I fantasize about taking provactive pictures if I had the chance, but to slow the growing # of cases of voyeurs as talked about in the article above.

You're annoyed with this discussion, yet you don't choose to stop engaging in it - you go on to tell us about your issues at the supermarket. We disagree. Lets move on.

[bobauckland]

Thank you bobauckland for letting me know my thoughts are irrational and that I'm wrong. I was replying to a post comparing the sounds on a Blackberry camera shutter to banning cars and the problems at the US/Mexico border. Really!? But somehow my response was irrational. Right.

If you read the posts I've made on this thread, you'd notice that I haven't referred to any laws neither have I attempted to change anyones opinions. I've merely stated my opinion...isn't that what forums like this are for? Perhaps you should take a little of your own advice.

Sadly, I prefer audible shutters not because I fantasize about taking provactive pictures if I had the chance, but to slow the growing # of cases of voyeurs as talked about in the article above.

You're annoyed with this discussion, yet you don't choose to stop engaging in it - you go on to tell us about your issues at the supermarket. We disagree. Lets move on.

Someone said if you're going to ban cameras because they may be used for bad purposes, you may as well ban cars cos people may get drunk and kill someone.
You countered by saying that the issue is drunk driving is banned, which makes very little sense.
I said you didn't get the original poster's point, that driving and drinking, separately, are not illegal.
Much as muted cameras are not illegal.

You clearly have not bothered to read the post or think about it.
Certain topics bring out people who aren't interested in hearing about other people's views.
Maybe I'm one of them, but if the law says I can do something, I refuse to believe I should not do something because someone else thinks I shouldn't. In my mind, if someone tries to say that something should not be allowed, even if it's not illegal, then that person has lost all credibility in most cases.

Anyway we will leave it as you suggest, I can't see either side budging on this, much as that boggles my mind.

In a few weeks/months the camera mute will be available for those of us that want it. C'est la vie.

[RubberChicken76]

Speaking of the law, does anyone actually know if there is any legislation in any country that requires companies to prevent the disabling of the shutter sound?

I can see corporations having policies of cameras to be fully or partially disabled but haven't heard of any country actually placing restrictions on the cell phone camera usage.

[Mercury]

Speaking of the law, does anyone actually know if there is any legislation in any country that requires companies to prevent the disabling of the shutter sound?

I can see corporations having policies of cameras to be fully or partially disabled but haven't heard of any country actually placing restrictions on the cell phone camera usage.

South Korea: 64-decibel shutter sound mandated by law since 2004 (secondary source; could not find a primary source in English)

https://www.privacyinternational.org...illance-policy

[Mercury]

Speaking of the law, does anyone actually know if there is any legislation in any country that requires companies to prevent the disabling of the shutter sound?

I can see corporations having policies of cameras to be fully or partially disabled but haven't heard of any country actually placing restrictions on the cell phone camera usage.

This is from another website

But for some of you, depending on your region and carrier, you may not be able to turn off the shutter sound on your Samsung Galaxy S3.

For example, if you're in Korea and certain locales in Europe, your smartphone's shutter sound cannot be muted—it's the law. If you have a carrier like Sprint in the U.S., the camera sound will also remain on at all times. However, if you have AT&T, they do allow you to turn off the camera sound.

This is a statement straight form Sprint:

"Sprint has had a policy in place for the last couple of years...that requires...that the shutter sound in the camera cannot be muted by the end user. This policy is in place for privacy reasons so that using the native camera creates a sound that would be noticeable to any subjects of a photograph, willing or unwilling. This policy is another example of Sprint's ongoing commitment to privacy when it comes to mobile device usage. This specification does not have any bearing on 3rd party camera applications that a user may download and use outside of the native device camera."

[meltbox360]

Are you serious?? Did you not read the first two paragraphs.? Lol


"Most smartphone cameras have a built-in shutter noise to prevent the camera being used to take pictures without people's consent.
But a new wave of 'silent' apps - some specifically designed for voyeurism - have been blamed for a huge rise in illicit photography in Japan."



Posted via CB10 on my Z10 Oreo

AND DID YOU READ THE PART ABOUT THE APPS THEY USE IN JAPAN. Holy gawd.... read THE WHOLE article and you'll see it mostly comments on apps that allow you to take pictures while having an app on your screen. That is designed for pervs. Go on... check for yourself. And maybe my comment on cars and drunk driving was logically flawed however the point was more along the lines of don't ban features because they can be abused. Don't ban driving because people can drive drunk, ban drunk driving eg pervs and not silent cameras. Congratulations on poking a hole in what I said but my point wasn't terribly difficult to understand.

Edit: Eveb the part you quoted against me said there are voyeurism apps that are the problem. NOT silent stock camera apps. Good sir you need to think a little.