Independent calls camera phones "Peeping Tom's secret weapon"

"Peeping Tom's secret weapon" says the headline of an article in the Independent about voyeurism and its relationship to the Internet. The article says camera phones are "a killer gadget" for voyeurs.

The reporter says, "Take a camera to a nudist beach, and suspicions will be aroused. Take a mobile phone, and you can be texting a friend or waiting for a call.

"Worldwide camera-phone sales are likely to reach 150 million this year, or more than 25 per cent of all mobile-phone sales. And with each new model the picture quality improves."

Camera phone ads encourage voyeurism?

The article interviews Dr. Michael Johnson, a U.S. psychologist who specializes in treating people with "sexual addiction." Johnson says camera phones encourage taking voyeuristic photos.

He says, "The ease and low cost of this kind of voyeurism seems to be driving the increase. All you have to do is look at the TV adverts -- in the States at least -- to get the implication that cell-phone cameras can be used to victimise people by taking sexualised photos of them.

"Of course, in the adverts, the women are shown as flattered, willing participants of the intrusion. In reality, I doubt women would see 'upskirt' photos as flattering or acceptable."

Comments

[tychocat]

Utter drivel, pretty much start to finish. The article starts with the description of an alleged "upskirt" encounter, which I can charitably allow might have occurred as reported. But from the uncertainty of the factual basis of this encounter, the writer next leaps off into fantasy by admitting, "It's impossible to put an exact figure on it, but it wouldn't be an exaggeration to suggest that tens of thousands of women are unknowingly appearing on pornographic websites." He admits he has no facts from the get-go, and then freely makes up the hyperbole to suit his purposes.

I did one bit of checking, and verified there is a Michael Johnson, PhD, who could easily have been the quoted person claiming that cameraphones lead to voyeurism. It's clear however that Dr. Johnson has no facts either - he has not studied the issue, has done no surveys, and carefully avoids saying anything except that this is a treatable issue, coincidentally his practice being the treatment of sexual addictions.

I'm guessing the good doctor might happily comment on the obvious sexual addictions present in anything (treatable at his clinic or at his workshops at reasonable fees), including Alan Greenspan and the raising or lower of the prime interest rate.