Techdirt Wireless' Mike Masnick's comments about my entry yesterday of how handset vendors will likely offer two models of some cellular phones -- one with a camera and one without -- got me thinking about your employer's influence over your personal phone purchase.
Mike writes, "This is going to be a huge waste of money. Designing a new phone will take some money, and will create a phone that offers less value to the customer (and less opportunity for revenue for the carrier).
"However as camera phones begin to find more acceptance in the marketplace, people are going to get angry when their boss tells them the expensive phone they just bought can't be brought into the office. They're not going to want to buy the version without the camera if part of the reason they're upgrading is for the camera in the first place.
"This is a (costly) over reaction to a technology that will do nothing to stop the real problem (theft of corporate secrets or invasion of privacy), but will cost lots of money and anger many people."
How much influence?
If your company gives you a cellular phone and pays the airtime bill you probably don't have too much say about what you get unless you're a top executive who helped determine the contract. But what if you need a cellular phone for business and your company doesn't give you a phone, but pays your airtime bill for the business calls? Or, what if you use your own phone for business but your company doesn't reimburse you at all?
How much influence should your company have over your personal buying decision? You want a camera phone but your company bans camera phones from the building.
You might say, "Well, if your company bans camera phones, just don't buy one!" But what if you want a camera phone for your personal use? And, frankly, I think businesses are going to be surprised by the value of camera phones. People will find uses for camera phones they didn't anticipate.
Stopping corporate espionage
A couple of weeks ago I wrote in my Reiter's Wireless Data Web Log about an analyst -- a clueless analyst -- who recommended that corporations ban camera phones even if they don't deal with sensitive products or services.
As I pointed out in that article, anyone determined to photograph something has plenty of options that are better than carrying around a camera phone. You may purchase all sorts of "spy cameras" ranging from tiny digital cameras (that look like cameras) to cameras disguised as clocks, pens, tissue boxes, eyeglass cases, etc.
What's a corporation going to do? Ban clocks, pens, tissue boxes and eyeglass cases?
True security concerns versus stupidity
Companies with legitimate security concerns need to take appropriate measures. But most companies that ban camera phones will be, I believe, simply paranoid. People are going to want camera phones. Wholesale banning is a mark of the moron.
Comments