Leader: US phone camera bans

In the UK many schools have already talked about banning camera phones for fear they may be used to take 'candid' photos that could fall into the wrong hands.

And in other countries camera phones have been banned from bath houses, changing rooms, gyms, saunas and other places where photography could be deemed an infringement of somebody's privacy.

Now the US is joining in on the action - pushing through a bill which will outlaw the use of such phones in a wide variety of public places.

And while there is nothing particularly new about such a bill, the timing will be the most interesting aspect for many observers.

After all, photography is a bit of a contentious issue in the US at the moment for fairly well-publicised reasons.

Such bans are only necessary because we cannot trust the people carrying the cameras. If the events of the past week have taught us anything it's that some pretty vile people know how to use a camera.

And it's a tricky sell for the US - balancing its puritan values with the right to bear arms. (And for arms read cameras).

Nobody in their right mind would argue in favour of being allowed to take photos wherever and of whoever they like. But similarly, people - especially those whose guns cannot even be wrested off them - tend not to react well to being told what they can and cannot do. Most tend to think they know how to police themselves and know what is right and wrong.

And then there is a freedom of speech argument. Could there be a compelling reason why somebody should be able to override the law and use their camera phone?

Famous footage of the Rodney King beating and its huge political and social repercussions angered some in authority at the time, but under tightening regimes would we ever want to near a situation where it can be decided who can use cameras and where?

How easily would the means - breaking the law - justify the end?

But the bottom line is that lack of trust for others - the likelihood that the majority of discreet photography is purely voyeuristic - and the fact that people's privacy should be sacrosanct means these bans will become an important item of law and in the main are welcome and necessary.

What do you think? Have your say by registering a reader comment below.