Since the replacement of analogue by digital technology and the requirement for electronic medical equipment to comply with European Union regulations on hardening against stray electromagnetic radiation, the chances of medical equipment malfunction due to the use of mobile phones has become remote. Recent press and professional publications on the use of mobile phones in the hospital environment [1, 2] would appear to provide support for the lifting of restrictions or, at the very least, a review of restrictions. Professionals who are aware that the electronic ‘danger’ from stray signals is limited or non-existent are likely to pre-empt any review and to begin to use mobile phones openly – and routinely – in patient areas. Seeing the actions of professionals, it would then not be unreasonable for patients and relatives first to question the current reasons for mobile phone restrictions or bans in hospitals, and then to ignore any restrictions. Hospital Trusts, wary of press criticism, may then be tempted to accept the changed attitudes and to then review and lift any ban. Nevertheless, before Trusts review current restrictions, it is my view that any decisions should be viewed in the wider context of technology convergence. In the context of the mobile phone, technology creep means that phones are seldom just phones – almost all now have an integrated camera, video and recording facility perhaps with internet access for downloading anything from CNN to videos. As professionals have already realised, mobile phones are useful not just for discussing clinical problems but also for capturing and sharing X-rays and patient images with colleagues. Such images can be intimate. This capturing and sharing of patient images has a potential for misuse. Unfortunately, as GMC investigations have shown, not all professionals have high ethical standards. Nor can there be an automatic expectation that all members of the public who use mobile phone accessories would abide by the ethical standards of the clinical professions. The ‘happy slapping’ videos indicate that misuse of the video facility is real and not a theoretical possibility. Professionals know that the photographing of patients requires their explicit written consent and that those images obtained using a mobile phone are no exception. Mobile phone images may also, unintentionally, include other patient data (for example information visible on the ward or theatre white board). Such data could reasonably be considered confidential. Its sharing could be considered to breech Caldicott guidelines. Professionals may also be surprised if patients demanded that professionals (or others) who have been using mobile phones for their primary purpose (speech) should demonstrate that they have not obtained digital images without permission of those captured. It is my view that professionals will need to be proactive in opening the debate about the use of mobile phones in hospitals and draw patients' attention to the technology shift. If professionals suggested that the often ignored ban was enforced solely in clinical areas, I believe patients and relatives would accept and even police any restrictions.