May 25, 2004
Rumsfeld bans camera phones
Posted by ryan at 12:42 PM in politics . | 12 Comments
In a comment to an earlier post I had mentioned how the advent of digital cameras has brought us many photos from the war that we are not used to seeing. In an attempt to keep us from these images, Rumsfeld has banned camera phones from US Military installations in Iraq. Turns out that some of the photos from Abu Ghraib came from camera phones. The Chicago Tribune also ran a piece (login: cyberpunk/cyberpunk) on the effect digital cameras are having on the war.
For the war in Iraq, the Bush administration devised the idea of embedded journalism. Put reporters and photographers in the heart of the action, they figured, and they'll help depict the sacrifice that our troops are making. The idea almost worked.
Little did they imagine what might happen if the true embeds, the soldiers themselves, had cameras.
So the government, which is sworn to protect free speech, is faced with an equally daunting issue: free pictures.
"We're functioning with peacetime constraints, with legal requirements, in a wartime situation in the Information Age," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld complained, "where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise."
The "people" are his employees.
Comments
|
The death penalty and now banned camera phones. We're turning into Saudi Arabia! On a side note, the link from the link is to a Saudi blogger's blog, it's interesting. And in English. Posted by: polamex at May 25, 2004 1:18 PM |
|
I don't suppose you'd oppose places like health clubs or other institutions with...oh say locker rooms and things... banning these phones for privacy reasons. Saudi Arabia? The hysteria is contagious around here... :o) Posted by: Dude at May 25, 2004 7:31 PM |
|
Dude, do you seriously not see a difference between photographs of government employees or contractors working and photographs of people peeing (this guy in Austin was arrested for photographing women while the peed, check out http://pineapple-girl.com/pango-camera.htm for the newspaper article on it)? I guess that in some of the pictures government employees or contractors are peeing on prisoners, mabye we should draw the line there. Posted by: brette at May 26, 2004 1:05 PM |
|
Brette, I'm glad you're my friend :) Posted by: Emily at May 26, 2004 1:16 PM |
|
Emily, I'm glad you're my friend, too. It's for the best that you didn't visit me in Austin, because I probably would have taken you to Pango, and then there would be images of you peeing, too. I can't belive I took my sister there. It was a good resturant, though. Posted by: brette at May 26, 2004 2:02 PM |
|
Yeah, I'm glad nobody has taking a digital picture of me peeing. That I know of, anyway. Posted by: Emily at May 26, 2004 2:05 PM |
|
I do see the difference, Brette...but this is military law, which is different from civilian law and rightfully so. Not to rain on another "blow the obvious out of proportion parade", but I promise you that if the current President had a "D" in front of his name, his defense secretary would have instilled the same common-sense policy. If you prefer to see it as another indication of blatent fascism from this horrible administration, however, you are entitled. As my Sgt. buddy told me on the phone today, "when you go to war, you aren't supposed to have a fucking cell phone anyway"...lol Posted by: Dude at May 26, 2004 2:28 PM |
|
Emily...soooo does that mean that you would be ok with a NON-digital picture of you peeing???? :o) Posted by: Dude at May 26, 2004 2:30 PM |
|
lol, Dude, we haven't been at war for a year, anyway Posted by: brette at May 26, 2004 4:01 PM |
|
NO! No pee pictures EVER! :-) As a related aside, Brette, did Katie ever tell you about Gwen? Posted by: Emily at May 26, 2004 4:15 PM |
|
Nope. Fill me in. Posted by: brette at May 26, 2004 4:22 PM |
|
She does the pee porn out in Las Vegas. It's on her blog. She thinks it's "beautiful". Posted by: Emily at May 26, 2004 4:35 PM |