Does anyone have any suggestions regarding protection against the use of cell phone camera's in banks? I hear there are 7 million of these devices out there. Think of all the possibilities!

"Opinions may not be the same as my employer's."

You know, I've never even thought of that as a security issue. I suppose that if someone is snapping pictures of the inside of a bank, especially near an area that would cause concern, they would appear to be a bit suspicious. Even if they were not using a camera, just "checking things out", they would appear suspicious and would be approached by the Security officer or even a CSR to put him on the spot. "Can I help you?" is a powerful tool. Beyond that, this is a pretty new area of concern. Thanks for pointing it out.

In recent security training I have been cautioning employees about these phones.........Everyone from lenders to bank lobby employees. I feel it's a security issue as well as a privacy issue.

In discussing this with our security officer, we've decided to make all branches drive-thru only and only accept cash on deposit (we found out about a $6,900 counterfeit cashier's check yesterday).

I think the problem could be that no one would notice the cell phone camera where you would another type. Just one more security issue.

Look at the 12-9-03 entry, 9:24 AM.

I saw a report on the CBS evening news about this issue a week or so ago. It was very interesting to me that the worlds largest manufacturer of these phones (the name escapes me) has banned them from their corporate offices! They were afraid that someone would use them to steal trade secrets.

Here's an article from our local paper. (The link may eventually expire, but there's a similar article linked to Andy's blog and here's one to a Tech Web article.) The manufacturer that you remember banning "camphones" on its premises may be Samsung. Apparently, South Korea will pass a law that requires camphones to "emit a warning sound" when pictures are being taken.

Banks who perceive this as a security issue could prohibit cameras on their premises (employees too). However, the prohibition may have unintended consequences as indiciated by Starbuck's experience after allegedly implementing such a policy for "copyright" reasons. The "ban" generated a fad where truly devoted netizens now feature photos of themselves taken at Starbucks on their home pages. (It's an Internet thing, I wouldn't understand.)

Drafting the dress code signage required in the modern bank lobby, i.e. no hats, sunglasses, guns or cameras is one deserving of Zaibatsu's literary skills.

Now, back to work...

Maybe a sign that says:

Is it permitted? If you have to ask, the answer is, "no"!

Neiman Marcus in Dallas has not allowed pictures in its stores ever since a reporter taking a picture for a story caught a prominent businessman and a woman (not his wife) in the store and put it in a Dallas paper.

There certainly may be more important issues than cameras in the bank, but I am not certain that a ban on them would work. In fact, I have taken pictures with my large SLR camera without anyone noticing. The camera was slung around my neck and I just inconspicously pressed away. The pictures were not perfect, but I got what I wanted. I suppose a person could pretend to talk on their phone while taking pictures. This is one of those things where you post the sign and then ask people to leave if they break the rule. I would have some sort of write up available for those who ask why.