Argument - Research Paper Example

Argument Paper This paper aims to build argument on the ban of camera phones in gymnasiums and other public places. Camera phones are an important invention however, they pose serious threats to the privacy and security of general public. This paper analyzes the evidences in favor and against the argument ultimately leading to a comprehensive conclusion. Should the use of Camera Phones be banned in local Gymnasiums or other locations? Cell phone is the successor of telephone which was introduced in the 19th century. With the advent of cell phones there came a huge revolution in the overall communication setup of the globe which is still subject to latest improvements and commencement of new technologies. Camera phone is a type of cell phone which has the option of taking pictures (Goggin, 2012). Due to this initially it was considered a tool of intervening in to the privacy of others and therefore many countries banned its use especially in the public places. Later on due to the extensive useful effects of camera phone it was allowed. However, with the passage of time inventors developed such sophisticated built-in cameras that now people don’t know even that they have been photographed. Despite of the fact that majority of the people consider camera phone as a blessing, it has given rise to many problems that were previously not present and therefore today people believe that the use of camera phones should be constrained especially in gymnasiums and other similar places in order to ensure privacy and security of the public while on the other side there are individuals who believe that the camera phones should not be restricted at public places. Hence it leads to an argument which is not yet resolved. In favor of the argument People who believe that camera phones does not create disturbance or infuriation in their private lives does not supports the idea of banning camera phone at public places rather they support the idea of using it at places such as gymnasiums. This is primarily due to the fact that camera phones provides an opportunity to capture the most lovable moments of one’s lives and also to share them with others via social networking websites (Goggin, 2012). Evidences Following are the evidences presented by those who are in favor of this argument. People who have mischievous intentions will continue with what they aimed for. Ban over the use of camera phones does not make real difference to them. People who are photographed by anonymous individuals often get involved in to provocative and attention seeking activities. Therefore they must be responsible for the consequences. Individuals having camera phones have sound knowledge about the privacy and security of others. Camera phones play a substantial role in recording adorable memories which occurs at public places because that is where friends have fun with each other. Gyms often conduct competitions and parents would love to capture their child’s pictures while competing. It is a great source of facilitating marketing and business campaigns. Analysis The mischievous intentions of people can be controlled by the implementation of strict rules and regulations which aims to provide protection to general public. Banning camera phones would be a significant step in this regard. However, if the use of camera phones is not protected by the law then there are substantial chances that people who do not have mischievous intentions will also indulge into harming activities for the sake of fun only. It is the basic human right that he/she might dress up the way they want therefore the law must protect this basic human right and should save them from any embarrassing situation. In the modern world individuals less than 18 years also possess camera phones yet they do not have basic knowledge about its use neither they have a sound concept of others’ privacy. Protection of others’ solitude is far important than capturing memorable photos. Whenever gyms arrange competitions they also appoint photographers from whom parents can easily buy photographs. Lastly marketing and business campaigns were successfully conducted in past as well when there were no camera phones. The analysis indicates that people supporting this argument present evidences on the basis of vague and inappropriate ideas which are not substantial enough to reject the ban on camera phones. Against the argument People who consider the use of camera phones at public places are against this argument. They believe that it is actually a breach of privacy laws and moral conduct since nobody knows who might capture their photograph. Gyms are places where people are often in the most susceptible positions and therefore the use of camera phones should be strictly prohibited in gyms (Whyte, 2009). Evidences Following evidences are put forward by the people who are against this argument. Nobody would like to be photographed in a gym due to their vulnerable postures. However, in the presence of camera phones it is almost impossible to stop people from taking anonymous photographs (Whyte, 2009). Camera phones can be used in extensive criminal acts such as kidnapping, rape, etc. Developed countries including Japan and China have already realized the hazardous effects of camera phone and therefore they have banned its usage in their countries. Lovable memories captured at the time of playing out often result in hatred and disrespectful comments over the social networking websites which ultimately results in revenge (Steinbock, 2007). Analysis It is a fact that in the locker rooms of gyms people are often dressing up which presents them in objectionable positions and postures. Camera phones allow individuals to capture the photos of people in locker rooms therefore it is highly recommended that the use of camera phones should be restricted in gymnasiums. In public places people can never be sure of their privacy in the presence of camera phones. Criminals involved in kidnapping or rape can easily take photographs of their targeted individuals subsequently leading towards increased criminal activities. Despite of being among the developed nations Japanese and Chinese nations have taken this step of banning the use of camera phones other countries must also take inspiration from them. Friends having fun at one place can never know when their friendship turns in to an enmity and if they lost the essences of friendship then the captured photographs are used so as to insult and provoke one another. The analysis of evidences given by people against the arguments presents a substantial support to the idea of banning camera phones in public places particularly gymnasiums. Conclusion Camera phones have actually increased the value of cell phones. However, their unnecessary and irresponsible use at public places can put people at various risks and dangers. It is highly argumentative subject that whether or not cell phones should be banned. Those who have evidences in favor of this argument mainly emphasis upon the memorable elements which are associated with the use of camera phones additionally they have a point of view that individuals must protect their privacy themselves. On the other hand those who are against the argument have more substantial evidences since they have emphasized upon the criminal activities that might take place due to the use of camera phones. The introduction to the issue, respective evidences and analysis indicates that camera phones must be banned in order to extend maximum protection to people at public places especially gymnasiums. The management of gyms should restrict the use of camera phones in locker or rest rooms. In order to save people from possible mishaps it is better that cell phones are submitted at the reception only. Additionally those individuals who are found violating rules and regulations related to camera phones must be charged immediately. Implementation of all these recommendations along with some precautions the harmful effects of camera phones can be easily minimized. References Goggin, G. (2012). Cell Phone Culture: Mobile Technology in Everyday Life. Routledge. Steinbock, D. (2007). The Mobile Revolution: The Making of Mobile Services Worldwide. Dan Steinbock , 304. Whyte, J. (2009). Criminalising Camera Fiends: Photography Restrictions in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Australian Feminist Law Journal , 99-120. Read More