Xenia was downtown with Sara yesterday when a woman identifying herself as a newspaper reporter for the Daily News approached them and asked if they were high school students and if they would mind talking to her about cell phones in the school. They had a nice conversation and Xenia called me shortly thereafter to tell me I might be getting a call about cell phones in the schools.
I received the call earlier this morning. And one of the first questions she asked was if I had any comments on the school policy against cell phones with cameras. I asked if they had a policy against ordinary cameras in the school. They didn’t. So I told her I didn’t think it made any sense to have a policy against cell phone cameras. One is allowed and the other isn’t. What sense can that make? Besides what’s the problem with cameras anyway? She expressed her opinion that there was concern about cameras being in the locker rooms and bath rooms. Yeah, I can see why they wouldn’t want pictures taken in those places but it’s just like gun control.
They don’t seem to get it. If someone is going to violate a rule against behavior that is obviously wrong and will be punished if the perpetrator is caught then what makes them think a rule against possessing the object to begin with will be honored? The possession is a victimless crime. Victimless crimes shouldn’t exist.
Just as old, broken-down windmills are charming while new, tremendously useful cell towers are ugly, so too are cell phone cameras evil while old film cameras are acceptable.
Cell phones are so insidious that they will give you brain tumors and start gas stations on fire. They’ll probably give you AIDS, and start hurricanes, too.
I think the major concern is that if someone has a camera in a locker room, it is more noticible than a cell phone camera and people would be more aware on any impropriety. I do think cell phones should be allowed; however, their use should be restricted to public areas, not in class rooms, rest rooms or locker rooms.